Bible studies

We now better appreciate the divine wisdom that sequenced the order of Bereshit’s and Shemot’s parshiyot. As for the author, all had been transcribed by Moshe, at the word of God. Moreover, the prophet received commentary on all that the Creator communicated to him. After we have laid out these four introductory rationales, we proceed to Shemot’s commentary, with God’s help.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 30, God’s fulfilment of Jacob’s earlier dream continues to unfold.
Abravanel supplies Bible students with proper context, as well as the right stance with which to
approach divine blessing.

“And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes
in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to
Leah, give me, I pray you, of your son’s mandrakes.”

“And your seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west, and to the
east, and to the north, and to the south…” Indeed, the divine communication to Jacob at Beth-El
foreshadowed a rosy future. His seed would grow exponentially. Still, divine blessing should be
construed as conditional; it depends upon the recipient’s worthiness. In our case here, blessing also
assumes it wouldn’t have come to Jacob and his wives had they sat passively.

“And you shall spread abroad” informed Jacob that, in time, he would father twelve tribes. According to
Jewish tradition, Jacob relayed God’s cheery promise to Rachel and Leah, as well as to their respective
handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah. A close examination of the boys’ names reveals as much, a topic
developed in Abravanel’s World. But for our purposes here, let us set matters straight. Abravanel
agrees with other classic Bible commentators who contend that Leah and Rachel were reproductively
impaired. Thus, action would have to be taken to remedy nature’s obstacle.

“And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them
unto his mother Leah.” The verse suggests that mandrakes boosted fertility. Hence, Rachel’s request to
Leah: “Give me, I pray you, of your son’s mandrakes.”

For Abravanel, there is a fundamental lesson to be noted. That is, even though Jacob’s family operated
under divine providence, and even though God had promised Jacob prodigious seed, it didn’t give the
patriarch and matriarchs license to sit on their heels, and do nothing. Instead, each one’s efforts were
brought to bear. Prayer and medical assistance, in the form of mandrakes, aided in those efforts. If this
were not the case, the Bible would not have bothered mentioning the story about Reuben and the
mandrakes.

Initially, Leah balked and did not want to part with her son’s mandrakes, highlighting her interests to
conceive additional tribes to the rapidly growing nation. However, an arrangement between Rachel and
Leah was worked out. “And Rachel said, therefore he shall lie with you tonight for your son’s
mandrakes.”Tradition attests to Leah conceiving that night.

In brief, this episode in the Bible conveys how the patriarch and matriarchs nudged, in a manner of
speaking, the wonderful tidings communicated in the Jacob ladder vision. They partnered with the One
Above to help bring about divine providence and promise.

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible. Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Chapter 37 starts one of the Bible’s most disturbing – and protracted – scandals: the sale
of Joseph by his brothers. The sibling’s recrimination, antagonism, conflict, and resolution accompany
readers to the end of the book of Genesis.  But first we read of Jacob's retirement from physical labor.

“And Jacob settled in the land where his father had sojourned, in the
land of Canaan.”

Abravanel sets the scene of the selling of Joseph by first focusing on Jacob. “And Jacob settled in the
land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” He asks: What information does the verse
convey? We read in an earlier chapter: “And Jacob came unto Isaac his father to Mamre, to Kiriatharba,
the same is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned.” Since the Bible does not mention that Jacob
left or traveled from Hebron, we may safely assume that Jacob settled there.

Abravanel follows up with a second question. “And Jacob settled in the land where his father sojourned”
does not need to spell out the obvious: “In the land of Canaan.” Bible students are fully aware that Isaac
never left Canaan.

According to Abravanel, there are two approaches to this chapter’s lead verses. They provide
remarkable insights into Jacob’s mindset as he settled back home, in Canaan. This blog covers one of the
approaches. See Abravanel’s World for the full treatment.

Abravanel begins by characterizing Jacob during the Paddan-Aram years, when he worked for Laban. An
ambitious go-getter, the patriarch doggedly pursued wealth and material acquisitions – day and night.

From the moment Jacob returned to Isaac in Hebron, his priorities changed. Isaac’s home was wholly
dedicated to spirituality and service to the Maker. Religious opportunity converged from two angles.
One, the first patriarch Abraham set the right tone by establishing Hebron as a place well-suited for
spiritual growth. Jacob’s father, Isaac, for his part, redoubled efforts in maintaining Hebron’s holy aura.
Two, the land of Canaan is wired to inspire man to reach his full potential. God’s chosen land is a fount of divine revelation.

No sooner had Jacob come home than he realigned his goals, himself. Acquiring money and increasing
assets no longer interested him. Instead, Jacob sought solitude, and divine wisdom. He longed to follow
in Abraham’s and Isaac’s footsteps.

But, if Jacob retired, who would pick up the slack and oversee the vast flocks and family empire? The
patriarch eyed his sons, all strapping young men. “And Jacob settled…” He had enough of the nomadic
life, always on the move and lookout for pastures. Now, it was his sons’ turn to keep the business going.

In sum, Jacob’s transition from entrepreneur to noble patriarch occurred when he reached Hebron.
Learning timeless values from Abraham and Isaac, along with the proper ambience and location
afforded by Canaan carried Jacob to ever higher religious awareness. Indeed, Jacob’s spiritual labor
benefited from Hebron’s strong tailwinds, a sacred haunt.

Numbers 17 is a continuation of the previous chapters pertaining to Korah’s attempt to wrest the
priesthood away from Aaron, the high priest. Consequently, God seeks to instill within the Jew’s
collective memory an object lesson: Never again should anyone usurp Aaron’s and his descendants’
divine, exclusive right to work the Holy Temple.

“And God spoke to Moses saying. Speak unto Eleazar the son of Aaron
the priest, that he take the fire-pans out of the burning, and scatter the
fire yonder, for they are holy. Even the fire-pans of these men who have
sinned at the cost of their lives, and let them be made beaten plated for
a covering of the altar – for they are holy…”

Abravanel explains. God issued instructions regarding the charred remains of the
incense pans used by Korah. These needed to be plated and then melded onto the Temple’s bronze
altar. This had nothing to do with the pans having gained sanctity. Hardly. Instead, the divine directive
reflects Heaven’s interest in preserving memory of Korah’s perfidy.

Consider this. A man’s actions may not always be characterized as intrinsically good or evil. Sometimes,
we need to analyze the intent behind the act and actor. To illustrate, take a fellow who performed a
good deed. That is, as far as outsiders were concerned, it had a favorable appearance. Yet he plotted
something reprehensible. We assess his act as deplorable and thoroughly bad.

Now we apply this lesson to our narrative. Offering incense comprises pleasing elements and is
admirable when done for the honor of the Almighty. Notwithstanding, Korah sought to debase God’s
will and defy bona fide Tabernacle agents – Aaron and his sons. In the final analysis, and despite
appearances, the thing must be judged as evil.

At root, Korah tried to delegitimize Aaron. Incense pans were the means used to bastardize a righteous
prophet designated from Above. God, therefore, desired those bronze pans as part of an object lesson.
They were to be welded onto the bronze altar as a commemoration to the Hebrews. No man who is not
from Aaron’s descendants may offer incense before the Almighty—on penalty of death.

Since Aaron was at the eye of the storm, if you will, God did not want his participation. Had he attended
to the Temple’s bronze altar’s add-on, folks might have drawn the wrong conclusion. That is, Aaron
turned the screws on Korah as an act of revenge. In his stead, Moses called upon Eleazar, the son of
Aaron. In this particular task, Eleazar served as acting high priest, entrusted to fulfill Heaven’s wishes.
Specifically, he picked up the incense pans among the smoky remains, adjacent to the courtyard’s
entrance. He then gingerly tread between the charred bits of leftover humanity. There, he took hold of
smoldering embers, casting them to the wind.

Why did Eleazar discard the fiery embers, but not the pans? The Torah says, “for they are holy.” This
requires explanation. It means that Korah “sanctified” the incense pans when he offered incense in the
courtyard. The Torah does not designate them as holy objects; instead, the description “are holy” attests
to the fact that Korah sanctified them to God. But from God’s perspective, nothing of the sort occurred.
“These men sinned at the cost of their lives” – not a hint of holiness.

Dissecting Korah’s plans further, we note that their intent stank. Given that, can we possibly color them
holy? Hence, the original form of the pans had been altered, “beaten plated for a covering of the altar.”
Furthermore, it would have been objectionable to plaster them on top of the Temple’s bronze altar. As
written, their placement serves to commemorate. “And they shall be a sign for the Children of Israel.”

Numbers 18 offers poetic closure to the previous chapters that featured Korah’s noxious
rebellion against Aaron, the high priest. With the rebel’s attempted coup quelled, Aaron
emerged from the trying ordeal with God’s confirmation, and favors. We shall elaborate.

“All holy portions that the Children of Israel apportion to God, I give to
you and your sons with you for an eternal statute.”

Our chapter’s verses sanction the priest’s enjoyment of more divine gifts, but in broad strokes.
“All holy portions that the Children of Israel apportion to God, I give to you and your sons…” In
a gesture that can only be described as altruistic, to the extent the Maker’s gestures may be
described in human terms, He grants that which belongs to Him to His priests.

Moreover, the Almighty etches and endorses the agreement with the priests as a permanent
one. “It is a fully preserved covenant before God, [a promise] to you and to your seed with
you.” Just as something is preserved by salting it, so too is this matter resolutely resolved, a
covenant of salt; it never stales.

Aaron learned more about the divine arrangement. “And God said to Aaron: In their land, you
shall not take possession.”The placement and context of the verse cannot be clearer. These
priestly presents are extended to Aharon and his descendants in lieu of ownership of any parts
of the Holy Land. “And a portion you shall not have in their midst.”This includes territory
gained through war spoils or occupation of enemy land.

Of course, there is a rationale to the ban on priests taking possession in Israel. The Creator
wanted the priests to focus their thoughts and not get sidetracked by mundane, farming
exigencies. “I am your portion and inheritance among the Children of Israel.” The priests’
livelihood is provided for. Theirs will be a quiet life subsisting on basic staples, courtesy of the
Maker. Worry will not be their lot, their energy freed to concentrate on serving their brethren
and on making sure that the Holy Temple service and rites run smoothly.

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible.

“And I will send an angel before you. And I will drive out the
Canaanite….”

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus chapter 33 dives into a fascinating subject: Which holy force will lead the
Hebrews during their desert wandering – God or God’s angel? For Abravanel, it’s anything but a
question of semantics. See Abravanel’s World for the full discussion.

In fact, the question of which mystical force would guide the Jews had already been broached earlier in
the Bible (See Torah Portion Mishpatim). Abravanel provides key context, in order to better get a grip on
this issue of divine versus angelic escort or chaperoneship.

Well, what was at stake? Why did Moses insist on God’s presence (and not an angelic one) and why did
the Creator ultimately acquiesce to the prophet’s entreaty? Moreover, when God tells Moses about the
“changing of the providential guards”, the seer wasn’t the only disheartened party; collectively, the Jews
sulked. “And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned. And no man did put on him his
ornaments.”

Explaining the complementary and supplementary passages, Abravanel elucidates. In chapter 32, divine
anger is explicit when God addresses His prophet: “And now go. Lead the people…My angel shall go
before you…Nonetheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.”Moses would have no
part in it. He was not about to shepherd the Creator’s flock in the wilderness, accompanied by an angel.

Thus, Moses held his tongue, saying nothing in response to God’s announcement, for he believed the
angel’s presence would bring trouble. The prophet also noted that last chapter’s verse made no mention
of the patriarchs, or the Holy Land, for that matter. These omissions were out of character, as other
verses had made reference to the patriarchs and Israel’s comeliness.

This background, for Abravanel, leads us to chapter 33’s lead verses. “And God spoke unto Moses:
Depart, go up…”The Creator informed Moses that He would deed the land to the Hebrews for two
reasons. One stressed Moses’ merit: “You and the people that you brought up out of the land of
Egypt…” God meant, that since the prophet threw his fate with his brethren, and “brought up out of the
land of Egypt”, there would be divine forgiveness for the Golden Calf sin, as well as title to Israel.

The second rationale focused on the fulfilment of an oath uttered to the patriarchs: “unto the land
which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying unto your seed will I give it.”

Here we have two rationales which illustrate God’s forgiveness for the Molten Calf. But what transpire
in the interim? Which force would escort the Hebrews during the arduous desert trek – God or His
angel? See Abravanel’s World for the full discussion.

“And it came to pass, when Pharoah had let the people go, that God led
them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was
near, for God said: Lest perhaps the people repent when they see war,
and they return to Egypt.”

On our verse, readers readily note a difficulty with our verse. The Torah appears to disclose God’s
motive for taking the escaped Jews via a desert, rather through the Coastal Route, that would have been
a breeze. And it would have gotten the Jews to Canaan much faster.

But what is written is not the underlying reason for God’s “peculiar” itinerary for His flock, as we shall
soon discuss. Why does the Torah provide a feeble rationale (“Lest perhaps the people repent when
they see war…”), when more meaty ones present themselves? Indeed, opting for a tenuous reason and
omitting the real ones represents a glaring problem with the text.

From the outset of the ten plagues, God was itching, you might say, to part the Red Sea, sending the
Egyptians to Davy Jones’s locker. Below we bring three reasons to explain Heaven’s motive for leading
the Hebrews away from the Coastal Road, instead, directing them via the divine cloud column and pillar
of fire headlong into an arid wasteland.

One has to do with the Hebrews leaving Egypt courtesy of and by permission of Pharoah. It was
understood that the monarch authorized them to serve God in the desert per Moshe’s request: “Let my
people go, that they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness.” From the first meeting at the palace,
the wilderness was the professed destination. For that reason, the Creator did not bring them out to the
Coastal Route. It would have given Pharoah license to slander the prophet, calling him a liar. Further,
Pharoah would have deduced that their destination was the land of the Philistines, with no intention to
serve God in the desert. This is expressed by our verse: “And it came to pass, when Pharoah had let the
people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines…”

The Torah stresses that Pharoah permitted the Jews to leave. It was understood that they would
celebrate in a serene, albeit barren setting. For that reason, Hashem could not guide them to Canaan via
the land of the Philistines, adjacent to Egypt. Such a plan would have brought the monarch to conclude
that in the land of Philistines were where the encampment sought refuge.

Two concerned another wrinkle God may have anticipated. Had the Hebrews traveled along the
Philistine Road, there stood a strong likelihood that the Philistines would have girded for war. Jewish
preparedness, let us say, was nil. The masses would not have mustered up the courage to fight. And
given that Egypt was nigh, they would have returned to it, opting for enslavement. We have concluded
the second reason. Before we continue to the third one, we interject a midrash, based on our verse.

“Although that was near” allows for multiple interpretations. In Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, it is hinted that
“although that was near” cloaks one of the very first Hebrew wars, one that ended in abject disaster. We
speak about a misguided attempt by the Children of Efraim to hasten the liberation of Canaan. The
impetuous tribe of Efraim marched headstrong out of Egypt and into the land of the Philistines, where
they were soundly smashed. Two hundred thousand soldiers met death in their inglorious rush for
redemption: “The Children of Efraim were as archers handling the bow, that turned back in the day of
battle.” Our verse states, “Lest perhaps the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” It alludes to the annihilation of the tribe of Efraim. When the encampment witnesses Efraim’s carnage,
their brothers’ bones strewn about on the Philistine Road, they will chant in unity: Let us return to
Egypt.

To summarize the second point, we put forth that God did not guide them along the Coastal Highway,
rather He opted for the desert. A vital lapse of time (forty years!) would grant the Hebrews precious
opportunity to thoroughly train for war. After decades in the wilderness, they would encounter Sichon’s,
Og’s, and the Canaanites’ formidable forces, emerging victorious. Further, these enemies are based far,
far away from Egypt. Geographical considerations would have given pause to the Hebrews about a
return to their former slaveowners.

Three is the most powerful and compelling. The Philistine Route offered no body of water. The Creator
hungered to split the sea for the Jews, and to drown Egyptians in it (revenge for Egyptians drowning
Hebrew babies). That necessitated the nation to be led into the desert. The Red Sea served as the plan’s
centerpiece. Our section’s second verse says: “But God led the people about, by the way of the
wilderness by the Red Sea…”

We can prove our point by interjecting a Hebrew grammar rule. Specifically, it concerns the usage of the
Hebrew letter vav, generally a conjunction meaning “and.” However, in Scripture a vav may also signal a
root cause. For our purposes here, we will show how it works, and reframe the section’s second verse
accordingly. “And God, in order to lead the people about by the way of the wilderness – because of the
Red Sea…”

Rendering the verse as we have provides the proper accent or tone. Consequently, we better
understand God’s main rationale for doing what He did. That is, he led them into a desert, and not into
Canaan via the Coastal Road, because of a highly-anticipated confrontation and divine rendezvous at the
Red Sea with their heartless, quondam taskmasters and baby-killers.

“And you shall command the Children of Israel, that they bring unto you pure olive oil beaten for the
light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. In the Tent of Meeting…Aharon and his sons shall set it in
order, to burn from evening to morning before God…”

‘This section’s opening paragraphs seem disjointed because they switch theme tracks. Note that the
lead verse talks about lighting the menorah before taking on the main subject – that of the priest’s
special clothing. How should readers relate to this zigzag?

Really, God’s command to Moshe regarding lighting the menorah was not intended as a divine order
whose time had arrived, but rather as a prophetic heads-up…’

Page 88 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

to undergo circumcision or brit milah. Both verses are explicit.

Hebrews sojourning in a foreign land would emerge to liberate, and take possession of, Israel.

One last clarification for the classic Biblical commentators. They argued that God had not performedmiracles for the patriarchs along the lines that He had done for Moshe. For their proof, they bring the example of turning Moshe’s staff into a snake. Or another example of something supernatural that the Creator did for Moshe was the wonder of the prophet’s hand becoming leprous, and then hale again.

We now turn and suggest what amounts to a truer read of our verse. Backdrop is essential. At the time when God reached out to Moshe, both he and nation had grown disillusioned over the prospect of evergaining freedom from Egyptian taskmasters. Centuries of exile stripped slaves of their faith, relegatingredemption or geulah to no more than a quixotic pipe dream of yesteryear. “For since I came to Pharoah to speak in Your name…”

brevity, we bring only the first rationale.

know Him. God’s messages had come via an intermediary, and not directly or panim el panim.

name [Hashem], I made Me not known to them.”

had never been granted to the patriarchs.

must.

“And Moses assembled all the congregation of the Children of Israel,
and said unto them: These are the words which God has commanded,
that you should do them.”

Abarbanel notes that the lead verse requires explanation. If Moshe gathered the Hebrews for the
purpose of issuing a command to build the Tabernacle, as it says, “These are the words which God has
commanded, that you should do them”, why does he first start with the mitzvah to observe Shabbat:
“Six days shall work be done?”

The question looms larger, Abarbanel asks, because the obligation to keep Shabbat had been broached
in an earlier section, the one discussing manna. Further, the Jews heard a repeat of the Shabbat
mitzvah, later on Sinai. Moreover, four chapters earlier, yet another reference to Shabbat observance
was mentioned. Hence, Abarbanel’s glaring question here: Why bring up Shabbat again?

One final point. In last week’s section, Ki Tisa, we find the Torah issued a warning to heed Shabbat after
wrapping up a broad discussion on the Mishkan. Yet, here we find the order reversed. Shabbat gets
mentioned prior to verses speaking about the Mishkan.

Abarbanel supplies a timeline. After Moshe descended from Sinai, he commanded the entire nation,
men and women, to gather outside of the camp, specifically in his lecture hall, or the Tent of Assembly.
The prophet intended to inform the masses what God had commanded. That is, each person should
donate to the Tabernacle enterprise. This follows the opinion of the classic Biblical scholar, the Ramban.

Likely, this assembly took place the day after Moshe had descended from Sinai. He conveyed to his
brethren that the Maker had forgiven and pardoned them for their iniquity. Moreover, the Shechinah
would rest in their midst. Wonders, stupendous wonders, would He do for them, beyond the likes of
which had ever been performed – anywhere or anytime.

Of course, the Hebrews delighted in the news. Ecstatic. That is when Moshe saw fit to teach them about
the Mishkan. To be clear, the prophet had learned of this divine commandment as he sat upon Sinai,
before his co-religionists had built a Molten Calf. When the Creator reconciled with His nation,
evidenced by the giving of the second set of Tablets, God entered into a covenant: the Shechinah would
dwell among the Hebrews.

The loving and intimate relationship between the Jews and God had been repaired, restored. Reclaimed
affection expression may be summed up in an earlier verse: “Build Me a Tabernacle that I may dwell in
your midst.” Thus, after divine anger subsided, a time of renewed intimacy had been ushered in.

That is precisely when Moshe bid his brethren to build the Tabernacle: “These are the words which God
has commanded, that you should do them.” At this juncture, the prophet cautioned the Hebrews to
observe Shabbat. This signaled that Mishkan’s and its vessels’ activities would take place during the six
work days of the week, Shabbat excluded, for it is a holy time for God. Put differently, Mishkan work
does not trump Shabbat sanctity, with its concomitant dos and don’ts.

This section’s third verse reads: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath
day.” Prohibiting fire on Shabbat taught the Jews that the sanctity of the seventh day exceeded that of
the Jewish festivals, where fire is permitted (in certain cases of food preparation or ochel nefesh).

With this important element in place, Abarbanel answers his original question regarding the seeming
peculiar insertion of the Shabbat verse in a section otherwise dedicated to the building of the
Tabernacle. It conveys the sanctity of the Sabbath, one which ranked higher even than the other major
festivals, celebratory occasions where fire may be permitted under proper circumstances (ochel nefesh).

As for the words “throughout your habitations”, they teach another Shabbat rule. Namely, the Hebrews
are obliged to keep Shabbat wherever they reside, in the Holy Land or elsewhere. Major Biblical writers
learn something else about this prepositional phrase: “throughout your habitations.” The prohibition
does not apply to the priests engaged in Mishkan activities (at least some of the holy activities, but
that’s for another blog).

"In sum, tight linkage between the Utterances (10 Commandments) and accompanying laws convincingly persuades readers that Parashat Mishpatim conveys divine directives unlike any manmade moral code."

Shemot: Sinai Rules, page 464

“And God said to Moshe, saying: Speak to the Children of Israel and collect a separated portion. From
those who are generous you shall take a separated portion for Me.”

‘In a general Torah sense and here in this section in particular, Heaven’s modus operandi comes out in
full splendor. That is, Hashem desired to increase both the Hebrew people’s merit and Moshe’s
prominence. In our context, it means that Heaven did away with celestial intermediaries. In their
place, the Almighty instituted His direct divine guidance to the Jews and to Moshe, their faithful
shepherd.’

Page 9 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

“And God called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the Tent of the Meeting. Speak unto the
Children of Israel, and say unto them: When any man of you brings an offering unto God, you shall
bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd or the flock.”

‘Heaven acknowledged how priests deserved the Jews’ financial support. Through a system of tithes
and gifts, their needs were taken care of. This not only freed them from having to make a living, but it
also provided repose and sufficient peace of mind to allow them to do their jobs maximally. An
equitable arrangement assured steady income for the Kohanim and their families.

Clearly the Torah foresaw how priests, a branch of the tribe of Levi, would accede to special status
within the national fabric and rise to predominance. Their admirable erudition, refinement, and
character were also marked by outward appearances. In this, particular vestments played a pivotal
role…'

Page 10 Vayikra vol. I: The Meat of the Matter

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. We read in Exodus chapter 20, parshat Yitro, that the Ten Commandments were transmitted to the
Hebrews on Mount Sinai.

“And God spoke all these words saying: I am God, Who brought you out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no
other gods before Me…”

Abravanel discusses exactly what makes the Ten Commandments stand out from the rest of the Bible. It
is, not surprisingly, an elaborate discourse. See Abravanel’s World for the entirety of it. Here, we will
share with Bible students Abravanel’s three, salient observations.

One has to do with the Speaker – God. In contrast to all of the other divine commandments, only the
Decalogue was from Heaven, sans an intermediary. That is, when it came to the other commandments,
Moses delivered them to the Hebrews, at God’s behest. Not so with the Ten Commandments. Neither
angel or seraph or prophet uttered them; they came directly from Above. On that historic day, the
Creator of heaven and earth descended, as it were, and addressed His nation. Understand, therefore,
the Decalogues’ intrinsic prominence.

Two stresses the audience, the Chosen People. With the other commandments, God transmitted them
to a single person, Moses, albeit His specially-designated messenger who had shown himself worthy.
Moses’ brethren were not privy to hear what Moses heard, nor see what he had seen. How different
were the Ten Commandments! Every person, young and old, heard and understood God’s words. The
myriads of Jews were an integral part of the conversation with the Divine. The fire at Sinai they beheld;
the audible voice they heard.

Three emphasizes the material upon which the Ten Commandments were written – all etched in stone.
No other verse in the Torah, no other commandment had been so indelibly engraved. Rather, they were
transcribed from God to Moses, who wrote them on parchment. As for the Ten Commandments,
moreover, no engraver’s tool had been utilized. It was the Maker’s handiwork, His imprint upon rock.
Moses hadn’t participated an iota in it.

In brief, Bible students are hereby apprised of the Ten Commandment’s uniqueness, their
otherworldliness. The Almighty alone put His imprimatur on them, in a manner of speaking, as
evidenced by the three reasons stated above.

Almighty, but by My name [Hashem] I made Me not known to them.”  Parashat Va’era, First Aliyah

must.

“And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the
earth…that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that were fair.
And they took them wives…The Nephilim were in the earth in those
days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the
daughters of men. And they bore children to them. The same were the
mighty that were of old, the men of renown.”

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible.

In Genesis chapter 6, the Bible brings a narrative that reads more like Greek or Roman
mythology than Holy Writ.

Abravanel launches an investigation: Who were these “sons of God?” And who were the fair maidens
who captivated them with bewitching appeal?

Some commentators suggested that the “sons of God” were princes and of blue blood. Others posited
that these men were clairvoyants or astrologists. They charted the zodiac, peeked into the future, and
ascertained which women would give birth to children who would, in time, become worthy men.

Finally, some sages put forth that the “sons of God” were angels. They write that the angels were the
“Nephilim”, referred to in our verses above. “Nephilim”, they claim, carries an immoral or unethical
connotation. The Hebrew term “Nephilim” is closely related to another Hebrew word, “noflim”, which
means “fallers” or “falling.” These rabbis borrow “noflim,” per se, and turn it into “the fallen”, as in to
fall from grace.

Asserting that the “sons of God” means angels, for a simple reason, does not meet Abravanel’s criterion
for a straightforward interpretation of the Bible. Angels are wholly intelligent and incorporeal beings.
Moreover, according to Abravanel, angels have no physical impulses with zero inclination to sin. Thus,
wrongdoing for these heavenly facilitators is a non-starter.

As to the identity of these “sons of God”, Abravanel offers two responses. We offer one below, though
in shorthand.

“Sons of God” may have been descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. The reason why the
Bible characterizes Seth’s seed as “sons of God” is because they were, well, godly and pious. Insofar as
they were pure in character and deed, the Bible lauds them as “sons of God.”

Who, then, were the “daughters of men?” Abravanel answers that they hailed from Cain, the first born
of Adam and Eve, born of dubious circumstances, as an earlier blog has ascertained. Since Cain tilled the
soil, the Bible refers to the women as daughters of man, as in farmer. In Hebrew the generic term for
“man” (adam) shares its root with “land” (adamah).

In sum, we have established that the “sons of God” could not possibly have been angels. But now that
Abravanel identified the suitors and the bevy of beauties, there still remain questions: Why does the
Bible seem to disparage their marriages, putting the matchmaking in a negative and lopsided light?

Further, what shall we say about the “Nephilim?” If they weren’t crestfallen, heavenly angels, then who
were they?

For the fuller discussion on both of these topics, see Abravanel’s World of Torah. There, Bible students
will learn why Heaven frowned on Seth’s descendants marrying the descendants of Cain. They will also
read why certain people were designated or labeled “Nephilim.”

workers were essentially oblivious to Moshe’s rousing seminars…”

Page 103 Shemot vol. I, Sinai Rules

cohesive unit in our parashah.

Parashat Bo, First Aliyah, based on Abravanel’s World of Torah

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. The topic of Biblical leprosy began in Leviticus 13 and continues into Chapter 14.
Here the emphasis is on the cleansing of a Biblical leper, essentially a two-step cathartic process.
Abravanel delves into the sacrifices (step two) a Biblical leper brings to the Tabernacle. From a leper’s
offerings, Abravanel imparts a theological cornerstone of Jewish faith.

“And God spoke unto Moses saying: This shall be the law of the leper in
the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest.”

“And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave off all his hair from his head and his beard and
his eyebrows, even all his hair shall he shave off. And he shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his
flesh in water and be clean.” This, we may call it, describes the first stage of the cleansing of a Biblical
leper – bathing and laundering.

The second phase of the cleansing of a Biblical leper pertains to sacrifices. It is on this phase that
Abravanel provides Bible students with a pillar of Jewish belief. “And on the eighth day he shall take two
he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish…” The Torah writes
explicitly regarding two male and one female lambs. What were their functions?

The first male lamb served as a guilt offering (“And the priest shall take one of the he-lambs, and offer
him for a guilt offering…”). The second lamb was a female, and it acted as sin offering (“And the priest
shall offer the sin offering…”). Finally, the third of three animals for purposes of cleansing a Biblical
leper was a he-lamb. It functioned as a burnt offering (“And afterward he shall kill the burnt offering.”).
Here, according to Abravanel, is the theological implication of the Biblical lepers three animal sacrifices.

Judaism posits that everything that occurs to the Chosen People, everything that the nation experiences,
stems from divine providence. Put even more succinctly, the Creator painstakingly pays each Hebrew
according to his deeds (or misdeeds).

Let us apply this guiding principle to a Biblical leper. When he is afflicted with the dreadful disorder, he
needs to look inwardly, scrutinizing his conduct and speech. Why am I facing this hardship, he ponders?
Where did I go astray from God’s commandments?

It could be that the fellow’s introspection will jar his memory, and yield insights. Clarity might ensue. He
might even recall his misdeed that triggers an obligation to bring a sin offering to the Tabernacle. If,
however, the man can’t remember his transgression, then he would offer a guilt offering. Bear in mind,
that for a man who senses wrongdoing, but can’t pinpoint his error, a guilt offering is viewed as a
provisional stop-gap measure and sacrifice. Thus, the Torah requires a Biblical leper to bring one sin
offering and one guilt offering. This reflects reality, as wise Solomon teaches: “For there is not a
righteous man upon the earth, who does good and sins not.”

Consequently, a Biblical leper first brings his guilt offering (he-lamb), for he is in the dark about what he
did wrong. Next, the fellow brings a sin offering (ewe-lamb). This covers a sinner in cases of minor Torah
infringements, whereby he asks for atonement. It also garners forgiveness for egregious sins he recalls.

Finally, according to Abravanel, after the two initial sacrifices (guilt and sin offerings) restore a Biblical
leper to a healthier religious place, he brings a burnt offering (he-lamb). This further fosters and
cements closeness with the Almighty.